National Republican., 1887-01-07
when the doors were reoponed, 10 minutes
later, adjourned until to-day.
THE HOUSE.

provement OF the Erie and Oswego canals
ana TO secure the freedom OF the samo to
the commerce Of the United States.
Mr.. Randall, OF Pennsylvania, suggested
measure. " was not likely to pass, and II
would be we'll to allow some other proposi-
tion to obtain the floor.
Mr. Weaver, OF Iowa, seconded this sug.
gestion, remarldng that the bill would fail
unless Hennepin canal appropriation was
attached to II.
Mr., Weber, of New York, concluded his
argument In support OF the measure, urging
that In commercial point of view the
canals were national In their character, and
declaring that the fate of these great water
ways to the eastern sea ports was In the
hands Of Congress.
Mr.. Anderson, OF Kansas, heartily favored
the objects designed to be accomplished by
the bill.
Mr.. Murphy, Of Iowa, commented so.
verely upon the want OF attention which
characterized the members Of the House
when bill OF such serious Importance as
the present one was under discussion. AS
he was In favor OF the construction of the
Hennepin canal, so was he in favor of the
enlargement Of the Erie canal, or OF any
other measure which would give the west
ern producer cheap water transportation to
the eastern markets. 1t was this question
OF cheap transportation which had led to
the drafting Of the interstate commerce
bill, now under consideration, whose pur-
pose was to give the producer of the west
ond the consumer of the cast little relief
from the burdens imposed upon them by
railroad rnpacity.
MIR. Nelson, Of Minnesota, referred to
tie general discussion excited throughout
the country by the interstate commerce bill
as an illustration Of the great interest
with which the engrossing question OF
cheap transportation was regarded by the
people, and contended that no method OF
solving that question could be more eiilca-
eious than that Of enlarging and improving
the canals.
Mr.. Farquhar, of New York, said that while
atpresent the people Of New York were d.
vided as to the method by which the OK.
pense Of enlarging the canals should be
betrayed, they were of one mind as to the
necessity for their enlargement.
Mr.. Plumb, OF Illinois, advocated the pas
sage OF the bill, regarding It as the most
important one which has been brought to
the attention Of the present Congress.
The morning hour having expired, the
committee rose and the bill resumed its
place upon the calendar.
The House then went into committee OF
the whole Mr.. Springer, Of Illinois, 10 the
chair on the pension appropriation bill,
$1,000 below the estimates-the reelection
being In the item for the rent OF offices for
pension agencies. Without amendment or
discussion the bill was read, reported TO the
House, and passed.
The House then-yeas 1888, nays 77-went
into committee Of the whole (Mr. Springer
OF Illinois, In the chair) on the naval re-
organization bill.
Mr.. Sayers, OF Texas, declared that there
was no political object sought to be accom-
plished by the measure. 1t had for its OBJ
ject reform In the administration OF naval
affairs, In order to insure harmony, pro-
mote efficiency, produce economy, aud Sc
cure responsibility.
We had no feet worthy of the name; our
navy yards and stations, notwithstanding
the immense sums Of money spent upon
them, were in worthless and deplorable
condition, and II this lameutable condition
OF affairs was due, as he thought II was, to
the organization of the navy rs It now ex-
listed, the imperative duty devolved upon
Congress to give the relief which
was extended by the pending bill. lie
proceeded to draw a deplorable picture OF
a navy too weak to fight, and too slow to
run away, and of navy yards useless and
worn out, and utterly incapable of con-
structing flrst-class war vessels, and in
tracing the causes OF this worthlessness
and decay to the cumbersome Organization
Of the navy. He fortified his position with
extracts from the expressed opinions of
Secretaries Whitney and Chandler. As an
illustration of the lack OF harmony and the
clash of jurisdiction between the various
bureaus as at present constituted, he quoted
from testimony taken by the committee on
naval affairs to show that when sailor
was sick the cost of his transportation to
hospital was paid by the bureau of equip.
ment and recruiting, but IL he became in-
sane the transportation fell upon the bu-
reau Of medicine and surgery. II the
patient was carried to hospital in for
eign country the cost Of transportation was
paid by the bureau of medicine and sur
gerry. II he got well he returned to the
and recruiting. II the poor fellow died,
both bureaus stood aloof, and the secre.
tary OF the Navy had to come forward and
pay the expenses of the funeral.
Mr.. Reed, Of Maine, inquired why the
Secretary could not change the system
which permitted such absurdlties.
Mr. sayers replied by quoting from Sec
retary Chandler: "Aluch difficulty has been
experienced in effecting navy yard reforms
owing to the opposition Of persons inter-
ested in the existing system. u u - The
specific direction of Congress should be
sought"
Mr.. Saycrs, continuing, stated that the
opposition to the measure was directed to
that feature which provided for the consol-
idation of the bureaus Of equipment and
recruiting, Of steam engineering, and of
construction and repair. But for the con-
solidatiop OF those three bureaus, there
bill.
Mr.. Boutelle, Of Maine, opposed the bill,
believing 1t to be contrary to the In terests
of the naval service, and that its passage
would be detrimental to the interests OF the
government. 1t did not represent what It
purported to be. Instead Of being the
specific, admirably prepared and digcsted
method OF reorganization submitted by the
Navy Department, 1t was q makeshift,
based on an entire departure from, and an
absolute surrender of, the principles which
were declared essential when the original
proposition was submitted. The existing
organization Of the navy was adequate to
all demands OF the present and all the
probable requirements Of the future. In
der the organization, as 1t stood to-day, the
United States Navy Department, confronted
In 1851 by more gigantic foe than 1t was
likely to meet In the Immediate future, had
been enabled in the twinkling of an eye to
call into existence naval equipment great
and effective In power and resources.
This organization had been found to be
efficient until the return to power of that
party which had opposed the navy during
the late disturbance. 1t might be a cause
for national regret that in the organization
Of the Navy Department, In 1861, that de-
partment had not had the assistance OF the
present chairman Of the committee on
naval affairs or of his associates on the
other side of the chamber; but at that time
those gentlemen had been engaged In efforts
to consolidate the United States navy and
reduce the expenses OF the department by
getting rid OF its surplus officers and men.
But the navy had done the best it could
without them, and he thought 1t had got
along pretty well. Now, however, the
proposition was made TO uproot the organi-
zation under which everything creditable
to the navy had thus far been achieved.
After the election of Democratic Presl-
dent - or, perhaps he ought to
Qunlify that by saving after the